Aika hyvä KM:n määrittely/tavoitteenasettelu:
A recent spurt of posts on the Act-km list, has respondents trying to define knowledge management in a single sentence that can be grasped by a 13 year old – quite a task. I’ve been intrigued by the number of respondents who have (improved, better, faster, more correct…) problem solution, decision making, competitive position… and storing stuff in knowledge bases in their replies.
Koko tarina on täällä: The essence of KM?
Yhteiskunnan muuttuessa yhä enemmän tietoyhteiskunnaksi ja markkinoiden muuttuessa kaikkialla entistä kilpailluimmiksi, on yritysten, strategista kilpailuetua innovaatioista hakiessaan, ymmärrettävä KM:n merkitys innovaatioprosessin tukena.
Tästä aiheesta kirjoittaa pitkän linjan IBM:läinen Irving Wladawsky-Berger:
Just about every study on innovation identifies the power of collaboration and communities as one of the major forces driving innovation in today’s environment. For example, in our own such studies in IBM, a major conclusion of the 2004 Global Innovation Outlook (GIO1.0) was that innovation is increasingly collaborative and open, as more and more, it results from people working together in new and integrated ways. Specifically, the report noted that “. . . close cooperation across an ecosystem will stimulate new business designs, as companies redefine what they do and what they rely on others to do.” The GIO 2.0 report which came out earlier this year identified the power of networks, i.e., communities, as one of its top findings, as individuals told us that increasingly “their power comes largely from their ability to tap into and sometimes transform a larger network of people and ideas.”
Hän summeeraa innovaatiotoiminnan kollaboraatio-imperatiivin hyvin viitatessaan yrityksen tietämyksen kokonaisuuteen:
In the end, a company can only be as innovative as the collective capacity of the people in the organization, and clearly, that requires attracting top talent. In today’s highly competitive business environment, a company cannot attract and retain the top talent it needs unless such people feel that they are respected as individuals and professionals, which increasingly means that in addition to their work in the business, they are involved in activities as part of communities. GIO 2.0 participants observed that “innovation in business and society is fueled by the unifying notion of ‘the endeavor’ – activities driven by a common set of interests, goals or values.” We see that for example with the rise of open communities, social networks, online discussions or “jams”, as well as the collaboration that is such an integral part of the world of research, whether your discipline is physics, medicine, history or law.
Lue kirjoitus kokonaisuudessaan: Collaborative Innovation and The Humble Corporation
Donald Rumsfeld on voittanut tietämättömyyden hallinnan viitekehyksen julkistaessaan Foot in Mouth -palkinnon jo vuonna 2003 lausuttuaan kuuluisan lauseensa
Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
Itse asiassa häntä pilkanneet eivät tulleet ajatelleeksi että itse asiassa hänen lauseessaan on paljonkin järkeä. Ajatus on lähes yksi yhteen Michael Zackin kirjoituksen kanssa: Managing Organizational Ignorance. Siinä hän luo viitekehyksen, jolla organisaatio kykenee puuttumaan tietämättömyyteen.
The strategic challenges faced by organizations can be framed in knowledge-based terms such as uncertainty or complexity. For example, the competitive landscape may be considered highly uncertain because the organization doesn’t know enough to predict how competitors will act. It may be seen as complex because the problems it poses cannot be addressed by known and familiar solutions. Uncertainty, complexity and related terms such as dynamism, volatility and ambiguity can serve as powerful indicators of an organization’s knowledge or ignorance. These ways of describing what is known or not known have been inconsistently and imprecisely defined in the popular and academic management literature, however, so there are few coherent prescriptions on how to manage them. Consequently, organizations often end up implementing knowledge management solutions that may not be appropriate to their particular knowledge problems. What is needed is a coherent framework for describing and managing organizational ignorance.
Muuta kirjallisuutta tästä aiheesta löytyy paljonkin:
Lähde: The Green Chameleon
Patrick Lambe jatkaa tuosta Rumsfeldin kuolemattomasta lauseesta pitkälti edellisen perusteella ja saa aikaan seuravanlaisen viitekehyksen:
As the diagram suggests, the Rumsfeld Ignorance Management Framework is all about dynamics: prospecting in the unknown unknown domain to generate useful questions, which can be sourced in the known unknown domain, and brought across to the known knowns for application and use. Similarly, with internally held knowledge, auditing and publicising the presence of relevant knowledge, so that it too can become incorporated into known knowns and usefully applied. It’s all about enlarging the known knowns domain through disciplined practices and activities in the domains of ignorance.
Patrickin tarkempi selitys kuvalle löytyy täältä.
Seth Gottlieg on kirjoittanut hyvän jutun siitä, mihn sähköpostia parhaimmillaan käytetään ja mihin sitä ei pitäisi käyttää. Jälkimmäisille asioille on olemassa sitten paremmat työkalut:
I am not in the habit of identifying laws of nature or industry, but if I was, Gottlieb’s Law would be “A company’s success in content management is inversely proportional to the amount of information that is exchanged over email.” Email probably has an 80% share of the content management market and that is a huge opportunity for growth of real content management processes and technologies and great opportunity for improvement for companies in managing their content. In fact, the next document management project I do, I want to baseline the number of email attachments before the project starts and not declare success until that number drops dramatically.
